|
Post by bogus on Sept 25, 2011 23:13:28 GMT
I thought it was because Whelan and Delap dominated Anderson and Fletcher, to be honest. Also, Crouchie had a great second half and was linking up with just about everyone around him. Walters was closing down everything that moved (fucking incredible energy, this guy). It all meant that we were able to spend much more time on the front foot, where we play most of our football, and both of our full backs were able to get forward, which they both did very well. Wilko had an excellent game, but the pivotal thing was the two guys in the middle, Crouch and Walters for me. Just an opinion, like They were all parts of the same thing - the balance in the team. That we were able to play on the front foot was due partly to the fact that we had full backs who were prepared to overlap and make themselves available in the final third. This gives the wingers more freedom and hence we're able to play more positively. Having Huth at right back constrains Pennant on the right, puts more pressure on the left wing, and generally invites more pressure as he doesn't get forward as much and doesn't link with Pennant as well. Therefore we're not able to get on the front foot as often. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to see Wilko on the right, though it doesn't bother me so much as others on here. You said that playing Wilko was pivotal, but I don't agree, because if the two lads in midfield hadn't won their battle, continued by the good work of the front two, then we'd have been playing on the back foot and Wilko and Wilson would have been camped on the 18 yard box too.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 25, 2011 23:14:26 GMT
That we set up with a proper right back at right back yesterday WAS absolutely pivotal to our performance against Man Utd. I'd like to hear the argument that it wasn't. I thought it was because Whelan and Delap dominated Anderson and Fletcher, to be honest. Also, Crouchie had a great second half and was linking up with just about everyone around him. Walters was closing down everything that moved (fucking incredible energy, this guy). It all meant that we were able to spend much more time on the front foot, where we play most of our football, and both of our full backs were able to get forward, which they both did very well. Wilko had an excellent game, but the pivotal thing was the two guys in the middle, Crouch and Walters for me. Just an opinion, like I think we looked far, far better as a team overall last season when we played with Wilko at right back rather than Huth and I don't think it's a coincidence, that our best performance so far this season, again saw Andy at right back. If it was your decision , would you start with Wilko or Huth at right back against Swansea?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 23:25:02 GMT
They were all parts of the same thing - the balance in the team. That we were able to play on the front foot was due partly to the fact that we had full backs who were prepared to overlap and make themselves available in the final third. This gives the wingers more freedom and hence we're able to play more positively. Having Huth at right back constrains Pennant on the right, puts more pressure on the left wing, and generally invites more pressure as he doesn't get forward as much and doesn't link with Pennant as well. Therefore we're not able to get on the front foot as often. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to see Wilko on the right, though it doesn't bother me so much as others on here. You said that playing Wilko was pivotal, but I don't agree, because if the two lads in midfield hadn't won their battle, continued by the good work of the front two, then we'd have been playing on the back foot and Wilko and Wilson would have been camped on the 18 yard box too. It's all related though. Would Whelan have had that kind of freedom had we been relentlessly under the cosh as we invariably are with Huth at right back?
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Sept 25, 2011 23:27:22 GMT
I thought it was because Whelan and Delap dominated Anderson and Fletcher, to be honest. Also, Crouchie had a great second half and was linking up with just about everyone around him. Walters was closing down everything that moved (fucking incredible energy, this guy). It all meant that we were able to spend much more time on the front foot, where we play most of our football, and both of our full backs were able to get forward, which they both did very well. Wilko had an excellent game, but the pivotal thing was the two guys in the middle, Crouch and Walters for me. Just an opinion, like I think we looked far, far better as a team overall last season when we played with Wilko at right back rather than Huth and I don't think it's a coincidence, that our best performance so far this season, again saw Andy at right back. If it was your decision , would you start with Wilko or Huth at right back against Swansea? Wilko! I just said so?
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Sept 25, 2011 23:33:17 GMT
Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to see Wilko on the right, though it doesn't bother me so much as others on here. You said that playing Wilko was pivotal, but I don't agree, because if the two lads in midfield hadn't won their battle, continued by the good work of the front two, then we'd have been playing on the back foot and Wilko and Wilson would have been camped on the 18 yard box too. It's all related though. Would Whelan have had that kind of freedom had we been relentlessly under the cosh as we invariably are with Huth at right back? It was nothing to do with Whelan and Delap's freedom? They dominated by winning the ball. Had they not, we'd have been under the cosh anyway, overlapping full backs or not.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 25, 2011 23:35:31 GMT
I think we looked far, far better as a team overall last season when we played with Wilko at right back rather than Huth and I don't think it's a coincidence, that our best performance so far this season, again saw Andy at right back. If it was your decision , would you start with Wilko or Huth at right back against Swansea? Wilko! I just said so? Yeah we posted at the same time. I can only echo Rob's comments - I don't think you can simply separate the team up, it's a complete unit ... Imho the central midfield was more effective because of what was happening on the flanks, which (of course) ultimately led to Walters and Crouch being more effective. We can discuss the absolute definition of 'pivotal' until the cows come home but ultimately, I think you'll (now) be hard pushed to find a Stokie who'd like to see Huth (rather than Wilko) starting at right back next week.
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Sept 25, 2011 23:47:05 GMT
Yeah we posted at the same time. I can only echo Rob's comments - I don't think you can simply separate the team up, it's a complete unit ... Imho the central midfield was more effective because of what was happening on the flanks, which (of course) ultimately led to Walters and Crouch being more effective. We can discuss the absolute definition of 'pivotal' until the cows come home but ultimately, I think you'll (now) be hard pushed to find a Stokie who'd like to see Huth (rather than Wilko) starting at right back next week. We'll have to agree to disagree again When we lose the battle in the midfield, we either lose or win ugly, Like Liverpool. When the two in the middle get on top and the lads up front continue the good work, we're a really forceful team. I agree about Wilko for right back next week.............*as long as we get on top of their midfield ;D IMHO, of course! * and I mean winning tackles, rather than passing, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 25, 2011 23:54:08 GMT
Yeah we posted at the same time. I can only echo Rob's comments - I don't think you can simply separate the team up, it's a complete unit ... Imho the central midfield was more effective because of what was happening on the flanks, which (of course) ultimately led to Walters and Crouch being more effective. We can discuss the absolute definition of 'pivotal' until the cows come home but ultimately, I think you'll (now) be hard pushed to find a Stokie who'd like to see Huth (rather than Wilko) starting at right back next week. We'll have to agree to disagree again When we lose the battle in the midfield, we either lose or win ugly, Like Liverpool. When the two in the middle get on top and the lads up front continue the good work, we're a really forceful team. I agree about Wilko for right back next week.............*as long as we get on top of their midfield ;D IMHO, of course! * and I mean winning tackles, rather than passing, of course. So just to be clear (before we agree to disagree) ... you don't think Wilko (rather than Huth) playing at right back usually has any positive effect on our central midfielders, or at the very least it didn't do yesterday?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 23:58:57 GMT
It's all related though. Would Whelan have had that kind of freedom had we been relentlessly under the cosh as we invariably are with Huth at right back? It was nothing to do with Whelan and Delap's freedom? They dominated by winning the ball. Had they not, we'd have been under the cosh anyway, overlapping full backs or not. I didn't say it had nothing to do with that, I'm saying it's related. The balance to the team and ability to set up positively that having a proper right back in the side was as important as any other factor. Had the full backs not been available in attack then the midfield would have struggled to win that battle because we'd have been on the back foot more, and even had they won it their options in looking to get it forward would have been severely hampered by a lack of options because the wingers would be more constrained and the full backs wouldn't have added that extra dimension in the final thrid.
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Sept 26, 2011 0:06:39 GMT
I think the CM's have a positive affect on Wilko, when we're winning ball and playing further up the pitch. In these situations, Wilko has a positive affect on the team.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2011 0:09:30 GMT
I think the CM's have a positive affect on Wilko, when we're winning ball and playing further up the pitch. In these situations, Wilko has a positive affect on the team. Chicken and egg I guess. Wilko's presence in the team allows us to take a more positive outlook. If you look at the games Huth's started, and look at how we were playing with Wilko and Wilson at the end of last season, and see how much more positive we were with the latter in the team, it isn't a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Sept 26, 2011 4:34:51 GMT
Find a post where I've talked tactics. I don't know enough about them to inflict my feeble ideas on others. Of course I wouldn't find a post of yours anywhere that raises any points about anything. Thats not what you do. I think Trouserdog and Bunny sum it up far better than I can be bothered to try to do on the previous page. At least have the decency to leave the rest of the thread to people who want to discuss what they see. Thanks in anticipation.
|
|
|
Post by wandonlodge2 on Sept 26, 2011 9:05:35 GMT
I think both sides are as one-eyed as each other. But, of the two extremes, I'd take the naivety of a happy clapper in the bad times over the knocker's determination to search out negatives even when things are going brilliantly. In which case one of us doesn't understand that the purpose of this message board is to discuss all things Stoke City good or bad. The original post on this thread simply celebrated the fact that some myths proposed by the people who will not allow discussion they perceive as anti- manager to take place had been blown away by the manager and players. If you are more comfortable in a World where supporters do not look to discuss aspects they would like to see improved I think you are going to be disappointed. It's what supporters do. How many times do you want people to say how much better things are now than a few years ago? The fact that like most supporters I didn't want Pulis back has never stopped me from stating he has done a great job and neither does it mean I can't criticise what he does to benefit from that. Given that I supported his original appointment when many were critical I feel I've got a reasonably balanced view although I'm a bit prone to scepticism. If you prefer the see no evil, won't hear any evil approach of the Wandonlodges then so be it. I tend to leave that to the Official SCFC site! God knows why I'm bothering to explain myself but there you go. It's just another thread wrecked by the usual suspects who in the absence of anything constructive to contribute prefer to personalise matters. How disingenous. I'll explain it yet again for you (I'll even put the important bits in capitals for you). I don't mind anyone complaining or criticising (the messageboard would be hopeless if people didn't). I don't like people WHO DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN. I find CONSTANT WHINING tedious and tiresome and also unfair to a club/manager/players who (I think most fair-minded people would agree) have done their supporters proud over the last few years. On top of that I find your messageboard persona very unpleasant (you might be the nicest chap in Christendom in real life). Your default position is to criticise the manager and you are often snide and childish about it (your little tale about how that nasty Tony Pulis didn't remember if an Academy player had an injury was nauseating). You are pompous, arrogant, self-aggrandising and self-serving. The irony is that any valid points you make are lost in the endless stream of bile. Victory or defeat only serve as vehicles for you to further your own little gripes and grudges - if we lose it is solely because the manager is shit, if we win it is only because the manager did what YOU wanted). How up yourself is it possible to be? Oh, and YOU choose to hold forth on a public forum so stop complaining about being criticised (the hypocrisy). You have the right to churn out your snide little agenda and I have the right to criticise you - so STOP MOANING.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Sept 26, 2011 10:22:37 GMT
In which case one of us doesn't understand that the purpose of this message board is to discuss all things Stoke City good or bad. The original post on this thread simply celebrated the fact that some myths proposed by the people who will not allow discussion they perceive as anti- manager to take place had been blown away by the manager and players. If you are more comfortable in a World where supporters do not look to discuss aspects they would like to see improved I think you are going to be disappointed. It's what supporters do. How many times do you want people to say how much better things are now than a few years ago? The fact that like most supporters I didn't want Pulis back has never stopped me from stating he has done a great job and neither does it mean I can't criticise what he does to benefit from that. Given that I supported his original appointment when many were critical I feel I've got a reasonably balanced view although I'm a bit prone to scepticism. If you prefer the see no evil, won't hear any evil approach of the Wandonlodges then so be it. I tend to leave that to the Official SCFC site! God knows why I'm bothering to explain myself but there you go. It's just another thread wrecked by the usual suspects who in the absence of anything constructive to contribute prefer to personalise matters. How disingenous. I'll explain it yet again for you (I'll even put the important bits in capitals for you). I don't mind anyone complaining or criticising (the messageboard would be hopeless if people didn't). I don't like people WHO DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN. I find CONSTANT WHINING tedious and tiresome and also unfair to a club/manager/players who (I think most fair-minded people would agree) have done their supporters proud over the last few years. On top of that I find your messageboard persona very unpleasant (you might be the nicest chap in Christendom in real life). Your default position is to criticise the manager and you are often snide and childish about it (your little tale about how that nasty Tony Pulis didn't remember if an Academy player had an injury was nauseating). You are pompous, arrogant, self-aggrandising and self-serving. The irony is that any valid points you make are lost in the endless stream of bile.Victory or defeat only serve as vehicles for you to further your own little gripes and grudges - if we lose it is solely because the manager is shit, if we win it is only because the manager did what YOU wanted). How up yourself is it possible to be? Oh, and YOU choose to hold forth on a public forum so stop complaining about being criticised (the hypocrisy). You have the right to churn out your snide little agenda and I have the right to criticise you - so STOP MOANING. Ahem... do you not see a certain irony there! This last post of yours goes beyond what could be described as 'debate', and you have admitted yourself that you have your own agenda: support the manager even when it's obvious that he's making a balls up. Some posters have argued on this thread that the inclusion of Wilko makes us a more balanced side, just as many argued that playing Collins was a complete waste of time. Are they wrong, and is 'your' manager always right? And if not, is Mark (or anybody else) not entitled to start a thread to say what they think without it being brought down to the level of personal abuse you have just demonstrated? I'm sure Mark expected some reaction to his original comment, but not to the degree which you have shown. Sorry, fella, but you've let yourself down badly there. OS.
|
|
|
Post by wandonlodge2 on Sept 26, 2011 10:43:12 GMT
How disingenous. I'll explain it yet again for you (I'll even put the important bits in capitals for you). I don't mind anyone complaining or criticising (the messageboard would be hopeless if people didn't). I don't like people WHO DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN. I find CONSTANT WHINING tedious and tiresome and also unfair to a club/manager/players who (I think most fair-minded people would agree) have done their supporters proud over the last few years. On top of that I find your messageboard persona very unpleasant (you might be the nicest chap in Christendom in real life). Your default position is to criticise the manager and you are often snide and childish about it (your little tale about how that nasty Tony Pulis didn't remember if an Academy player had an injury was nauseating). You are pompous, arrogant, self-aggrandising and self-serving. The irony is that any valid points you make are lost in the endless stream of bile.Victory or defeat only serve as vehicles for you to further your own little gripes and grudges - if we lose it is solely because the manager is shit, if we win it is only because the manager did what YOU wanted). How up yourself is it possible to be? Oh, and YOU choose to hold forth on a public forum so stop complaining about being criticised (the hypocrisy). You have the right to churn out your snide little agenda and I have the right to criticise you - so STOP MOANING. Ahem... do you not see a certain irony there! This last post of yours goes beyond what could be described as 'debate', and you have admitted yourself that you have your own agenda: support the manager even when it's obvious that he's making a balls up. Some posters have argued on this thread that the inclusion of Wilko makes us a more balanced side, just as many argued that playing Collins was a complete waste of time. Are they wrong, and is 'your' manager always right? And if not, is Mark (or anybody else) not entitled to start a thread to say what they think without it being brought down to the level of personal abuse you have just demonstrated? I'm sure Mark expected some reaction to his original comment, but not to the degree which you have shown. Sorry, fella, but you've let yourself down badly there. OS. Hold on, I haven't said half of that. I haven't said I have my own agenda to support the manager whatever. I said I took the rough with the smooth when it comes to Stoke. For (probably) the hundreth time all I am objecting to is the CONSTANT WHINING. Not discussions on tactics, not criticism of the manager or whoever. Dozens of people on here criticise the club/manager/players - have you seen me objecting? There are a FEW people on here who ONLY criticise which I don't think is balanced or constructive or promotes debate. Can you PLEASE read what I have actually written and then criticise me if you want. Don't criticise what you think I have written. And why have you written 'your' manager? Where have I ever described him as my manager? Are you mixing me up with someone else?
|
|
|
Post by wandonlodge2 on Sept 26, 2011 10:48:21 GMT
How disingenous. I'll explain it yet again for you (I'll even put the important bits in capitals for you). I don't mind anyone complaining or criticising (the messageboard would be hopeless if people didn't). I don't like people WHO DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN. I find CONSTANT WHINING tedious and tiresome and also unfair to a club/manager/players who (I think most fair-minded people would agree) have done their supporters proud over the last few years. On top of that I find your messageboard persona very unpleasant (you might be the nicest chap in Christendom in real life). Your default position is to criticise the manager and you are often snide and childish about it (your little tale about how that nasty Tony Pulis didn't remember if an Academy player had an injury was nauseating). You are pompous, arrogant, self-aggrandising and self-serving. The irony is that any valid points you make are lost in the endless stream of bile.Victory or defeat only serve as vehicles for you to further your own little gripes and grudges - if we lose it is solely because the manager is shit, if we win it is only because the manager did what YOU wanted). How up yourself is it possible to be? Oh, and YOU choose to hold forth on a public forum so stop complaining about being criticised (the hypocrisy). You have the right to churn out your snide little agenda and I have the right to criticise you - so STOP MOANING. Ahem... do you not see a certain irony there! This last post of yours goes beyond what could be described as 'debate', and you have admitted yourself that you have your own agenda: support the manager even when it's obvious that he's making a balls up. Some posters have argued on this thread that the inclusion of Wilko makes us a more balanced side, just as many argued that playing Collins was a complete waste of time. Are they wrong, and is 'your' manager always right? And if not, is Mark (or anybody else) not entitled to start a thread to say what they think without it being brought down to the level of personal abuse you have just demonstrated? I'm sure Mark expected some reaction to his original comment, but not to the degree which you have shown. Sorry, fella, but you've let yourself down badly there. OS. As for the abuse, I get plenty from Mark thank you. We despise each other and we don't get on and that is not a problem. (On here, I hasten to add, not in real life). For the record I don't like the messageboards personas of WFW, RAF and FAF either.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Sept 26, 2011 11:02:21 GMT
Ahem... do you not see a certain irony there! This last post of yours goes beyond what could be described as 'debate', and you have admitted yourself that you have your own agenda: support the manager even when it's obvious that he's making a balls up. Some posters have argued on this thread that the inclusion of Wilko makes us a more balanced side, just as many argued that playing Collins was a complete waste of time. Are they wrong, and is 'your' manager always right? And if not, is Mark (or anybody else) not entitled to start a thread to say what they think without it being brought down to the level of personal abuse you have just demonstrated? I'm sure Mark expected some reaction to his original comment, but not to the degree which you have shown. Sorry, fella, but you've let yourself down badly there. OS. As for the abuse, I get plenty from Mark thank you. We despise each other and we don't get on and that is not a problem. (On here, I hasten to add, not in real life). For the record I don't like the messageboards personas of WFW, RAF and FAF either. Then I'll butt out. But have you ever thought of not replying to a thread or post that any of these posters make that you don't like? Unless they have a go at you personally beforehand, of course. I've re-read all your posts on this thread, and it's obvious you've trolled it because you don't like Mark. Maybe you and Mark should meet by the Sir Stan and sort out your differences so we can have some decent banter without it getting to the point where a thread is spoiled for everyone. That's the time-honoured tradition in these here parts. Or at The Esso. OS.
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Sept 26, 2011 11:03:52 GMT
The Esso is gone. Or at least changed company. Despise is a bit much, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Sept 26, 2011 11:06:44 GMT
The Esso is gone. Or at least changed company. Despise is a bit much, isn't it? The Esso is gone! OMG, I hope DDM hasn't changed to a dragon in his afterlife, and burned it to the ground to find his Haggis. Or Stone Cold. Poor Stone Cold. OS.
|
|
|
Post by wandonlodge2 on Sept 26, 2011 11:14:10 GMT
As for the abuse, I get plenty from Mark thank you. We despise each other and we don't get on and that is not a problem. (On here, I hasten to add, not in real life). For the record I don't like the messageboards personas of WFW, RAF and FAF either. Then I'll butt out. But have you ever thought of not replying to a thread or post that any of these posters make that you don't like? Unless they have a go at you personally beforehand, of course. I've re-read all your posts on this thread, and it's obvious you've trolled it because you don't like Mark. Maybe you and Mark should meet by the Sir Stan and sort out your differences so we can have some decent banter without it getting to the point where a thread is spoiled for everyone. That's the time-honoured tradition in these here parts. Or at The Esso. Not falling for that one again. I already accepted RAF's offer to 'discuss ' things face to face and informed him of where I would be staying for the Newcastle match only to be ridiculed as a thug. I am certainly not getting into anything by the ground though. Your first point is a fair one though. Maybe I should just leave it to the discontents. Goes against the grain to just give up but I'm clearly pissing into the whining wind. OS.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Sept 26, 2011 11:24:38 GMT
Let's take a look at the scores, for the number of things got wrong by the PHWs and Apologists:
PHWs 72 - 1 Apologists
I think there's a long way to go before the PHWs can start gloating about Apologists getting things wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2011 11:27:20 GMT
We've got a shitbin, can we have a "compare cock size" area too?
WD
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Sept 26, 2011 11:28:23 GMT
We've got a shitbin, can we have a "compare cock size" area too? WD It'd have to be big...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2011 11:31:59 GMT
We've got a shitbin, can we have a "compare cock size" area too? WD It'd have to be big... Fair enough, I'll let you know where I'm at; I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc on Sept 26, 2011 11:32:35 GMT
'Despise is a bit much, isn't it?'
What about when he's referring to RAF though Para?!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Sept 26, 2011 11:33:11 GMT
'Despise is a bit much, isn't it?' What about when he's referring to RAF though Para?!!!! Well that's fair enough then!
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Sept 26, 2011 11:37:33 GMT
Good to see one or three apologist"s lines swept away in a tremendous performance. A game that was end to end at times killed for ever the notion that if we take the game to the big clubs we get thrashed. For the first time we have a real go at Man United and get our first point. The comical excuses that are made for not playing full backs in the full back positions was blown out of the water. Wilkinson in particular showed how a full back who is a full back adds a whole new dimension to our play without reducing our defensive area effectiveness. Wilkinson also stuck the proverbial two fingers up to the few who rubbish his ability in order that they may justify the manager playing square pegs in round holes. It was as good a full back display as you will see anywhere in the Premier League this season. Talking of square pegs we saw again confirmation of the impact Walters has as a central striker compared to the non-entity he is reduced to as a wide player as used the week before at Sunderland. The idea that he should be started out wide to suite a negative away game plan was exposed as nonsense. All but a couple of see no evils had already fathomed that of course. The idea that Woodgate is some sort of failed "experiment' as has been suggested recently was demolished by a further display of his international standard ability. All we need now is to stop fucking ourselves over with our away line ups and approach and we will be a real player in this league! Goodness me, if this continues our favourite band of apologists who have tried to suppress the ideas above are going to have to abandon their stock lines on here! It is so good to know that our naive manager has someone to put him right when we have so clearly been failing week in week out One or two comments... We had a go at ManU - yes true but there are reasons other than a sudden shaft of light hitting TP. A key factor for our aggression was that TP realised that in the absence of pacey strikers that ManU's ability to hurt us had been seriously reduced. Likewise TP now employs a striker (Crouch) with the ability to help change the way that we play. Crouch is ok in the air but more important is his talent for holding the ball up and setting up his team mates. this ability enables the team to push forward with a much greater degree of control than hithertoo The full backs did very well (particularly Wilco) and belied their limitations. I would certainly prefer Wilco at full back to Huth As for Woodgate; I have said elsewhere that Woody made two serious mistakes that could have put the game beyond us. Without doubt Woody is talented but from recent performances Huth or Upson would be my choice to partner Shawcross I am sure that TP would admit that he doesn't know it all (unlike some of his critics). His away tactics haven't worked for some time and now we have the added major disruption of our Europa adventure to add to the mix. It will be interesting for us all to see how our away form progresses this season. If TP can improve our away points haul then we will be reaching dizzy heights in the table
|
|
|
Post by wandonlodge2 on Sept 26, 2011 11:43:42 GMT
The Esso is gone. Or at least changed company. Despise is a bit much, isn't it? As for you - I think you are very witty. Please keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc on Sept 26, 2011 11:43:58 GMT
Paul, you say that TP played upon the lack of pace if their strike force but he didn't know beforehand that Hernandez was going to get injured did he? Yes, no Rooney helped but I'm not sure if you can put our success down to one single factor. It's about time we got a point from a home game with United as we've come close twice before but other 'lesser' clubs have managed to do it and have even beaten them. We need to manage our expectations of course, but let's raise them a little too.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 26, 2011 11:44:25 GMT
I agree with much of that WM. And to start the important games my choice of centre backs would also be two from Upson, Huth and Shawcross. I'm not saying Woodgate won't get back to his best, I'm just saying he isn't there yet.
|
|